The latter is probably not his intended meaning given that he states “these days the base rates for violence among blacks is higher.”
I think calling something a “moral abomination” means it directly conflicts with your values, rather than only being a “bad idea.” For example, lying may be a bad idea but probably not a moral abomination to a consequentialist whereas killing the healthiest humans to reduce overpopulation would not only be a bad idea because it would be killing off the workforce, it directly conflicts with our value against killing people.
The laziness in calling something a “moral abomination” is failing to specify what value it is conflicting with. Of course, having such a complex, context-dependent, and poorly objectively defined value as “non-discrimination” might be unfashionable to some.
The latter is probably not his intended meaning given that he states “these days the base rates for violence among blacks is higher.”
Those are the words he puts in the mouth of “a rational decision-maker using Bayes Theorem,” whose conclusion he identifies as a moral abomination. It is ambiguous whether or not he thinks that belief should pay rent.
I think calling something a “moral abomination” means it directly conflicts with your values, rather than only being a “bad idea.”
The purpose of indignation is not to make calculations easier, but to avoid calculations.
The latter is probably not his intended meaning given that he states “these days the base rates for violence among blacks is higher.”
I think calling something a “moral abomination” means it directly conflicts with your values, rather than only being a “bad idea.” For example, lying may be a bad idea but probably not a moral abomination to a consequentialist whereas killing the healthiest humans to reduce overpopulation would not only be a bad idea because it would be killing off the workforce, it directly conflicts with our value against killing people.
The laziness in calling something a “moral abomination” is failing to specify what value it is conflicting with. Of course, having such a complex, context-dependent, and poorly objectively defined value as “non-discrimination” might be unfashionable to some.
Those are the words he puts in the mouth of “a rational decision-maker using Bayes Theorem,” whose conclusion he identifies as a moral abomination. It is ambiguous whether or not he thinks that belief should pay rent.
The purpose of indignation is not to make calculations easier, but to avoid calculations.